Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Cruising the Web

Things just keep getting worse and worse for Hillary and her server/email scandal. What she and her staff are being accused of is quite serious despite her attempts to laugh it all off as part of the vast right wing conspiracy.
“It takes a very conscious effort to move a classified e-mail or cable from the classified systems over to the unsecured open system and then send it to Hillary Clinton’s personal e-mail account,” said Raymond Fournier, a veteran Diplomatic Security Service special agent. “That’s no less than a two-conscious-step process.”

He says it’s clear from some of the classified e-mails made public that someone on Clinton’s staff essentially “cut and pasted” content from classified cables into the messages sent to her. The classified markings are gone, but the content is classified at the highest levels — and so sensitive in nature that “it would have been obvious to Clinton.” Most likely the information was, in turn, e-mailed to her via NIPRNet.

To work around the closed, classified systems, which are accessible only by secure desktop workstations whose hard drives must be removed and stored overnight in a safe, Clinton’s staff would have simply retyped classified information from the systems into the non-classified system or taken a screen shot of the classified document, Fournier said. “Either way, it’s totally illegal.”
We now know that she instructed her aide how to convert a classified document into an unclassified one.
Top Secret/SCI e-mails received by Clinton include a 2012 staff ­e-mail sent to the then-secretary containing investigative data about Benghazi terrorist suspects wanted by the FBI and sourcing a regional security officer. They also include a 2011 message from Clinton’s top aides that contains military intelligence from United States Africa Command gleaned from satellite images of troop movements in Libya, along with the travel and protection plans for Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was later killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi.

“Receiving Top Secret SAP intelligence outside secure channels is a mortal sin,” said Chris Farrell, director of investigations for Judicial Watch, the Washington-based public law firm that has successfully sued State for Clinton’s e-mails.

“A regular government employee would be crucified, and they are, routinely,” added Farrell, who as a former Army counterintelligence agent investigated such violations.
Not only were her actions totally illegal, but it almost certain that her server was hacked by foreign powers. So her illegal actions directly led to sensitive information falling into the hands of foreign governments.

As Kurt Schlichter, a retired Army colonel, explains, classified information doesn't just show up on an unclassified system totally by random accident.
One doesn’t spill classified material into an unclassified system accidentally or through mere negligence. What these new revelations show—if they are true—is conduct that was conscious, intentional, and felonious as all get-out.

In basic and open-source terms, there is no one big computer system where innocuous, unclassified material shares space with classified material. They are kept on physically separate computer systems: there is the unclassified system, and there are several classified systems. They don’t connect, unless someone chooses to intentionally connect them.

When there is spillage of classified material into unclassified systems, all hell breaks loose. Well, at least it does when it’s not a friend of the administration doing the spilling.

Let’s take a look at what it would take to make this happen. Hillary Clinton refused to use a secure system. She wanted to use her own system because she could control it and unlawfully shield it from the prying eyes of the American people and their representatives. Her minions therefore had to deliberately act to circumvent the rules and procedures put in place to prevent people from doing exactly what Clinton wanted done.

First, someone would have to enter a secure facility—usually called a SCIF—to access a classified document on one of the secure systems. These terminals are behind locked doors with access controls and multiple security measures. You have to have the clearance to enter, and you leave your Android, iPad, laptop, and everything else with a chip outside.

Inside, you access the terminal and review the document you are working with. There are myriad warnings that you are viewing classified material. It is no surprise. So, Hillary’s minion would be knowingly examining classified information when he or she decided to break the law and send it to Hillary’s unclassified, private email server.

There are several ways one could move the classified material, each almost too horrific to contemplate to anyone who has worked with sensitive materials. You need to understand that even discussing this gives professionals the shakes. There are a lot of serious things in the national defense world, but nothing is taken more seriously than classified material. People can and do go to jail for screwing up. Well, at least the little people do.
After he goes through how someone would have to act in order to circumvent the law and email her highly classified information, there is Hillary's response once she receives such material.
So, Hillary gets the email, reads it outside of a SCIF, and, unless she is transcendently stupid, sees that it is sensitive material. Now, she did fail the District of Columbia bar examination, so she is no rocket scientist, but it is utterly implausible she did not understand that this material should not ever be on a server that some start-up runs out of a bathroom in Denver.

It’s equally implausible that enemy intelligence agencies also failed to recognize the nature of this material. There’s no reasonable doubt that they pillaged through it in real time.
The law is clear. Her defense is not. There is no way that she and her aides did what they did without forethought and knowledge of the laws they were breaking.

And why was she using her own private server in the first place? It is pretty clear that she didn't want her private communications falling into the hands of those whom she regards as her enemies. As Jonah Goldberg has said repeatedly, "the server is the smoking gun." He wrote back in September,
Every time the State Department pulls out a new fistful of Hillary Clinton e-mails like Richard Dreyfuss yanking a license plate out of a shark’s belly in Jaws, someone declares that there’s “no smoking gun!”

I’ve written before about how shouting “There’s no smoking gun!” is a non-denial denial. Ask a cop. When a murder suspect immediately exclaims, “You have no indisputable evidence I murdered my boss!” instead of, “I didn’t do it!” it’s a good sign that the suspect thinks he covered his tracks, not that he’s innocent.

Fellas, if your wife asks if you’re having an affair, respond by saying, “You have no proof!” See if she takes that for a denial.

But here’s the thing. There is a smoking gun. In fact, there’s a whole smoking arsenal. The problem is that the standards for what counts as a smoking gun keep changing.

Nearly everything Clinton has said in her defense regarding her secret server has been a lie. Among the minor lies: her claim that she set up the server so she could use a single device. (She had two.) Her claim that the State Department was saving her e-mails to staff. (It wasn’t until 2010.) Her claim that she erased tens of thousands of e-mails because they included, among other things, her e-mail correspondence with her husband. (Bill Clinton doesn’t use e-mail.)

Hillary Clinton said she never solicited e-mail from her lugubrious political hatchet man, Sidney Blumenthal. The latest e-mails show that she was in near-constant contact with him, encouraging him to keep his various reports coming. Blumenthal was barred from getting a job at the White House, so Clinton set him up at her charity–cum–super PAC, the Clinton Foundation.

The more important lie: She said she never received or sent classified information. “I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material.”

Note: This was not an off-the-cuff statement. She said this while reading from notes, after consulting with her campaign team and her lawyers, in a ballyhooed press conference in March at the United Nations.

And it was a lie. When the inspectors general of the State Department and the Intelligence Community confirmed in July that she had sent classified material, Clinton “clarified” her carefully prepared lie by saying that what she meant was none of the e-mails she sent or received were marked classified at the time.

This left out the fact that the whole point of the secret server was that it was hidden from the officials whose job is to designate documents as classified (and to keep it all hidden from Freedom of Information Act requests and congressional oversight). It’s like setting up an illegal still and then claiming none of the moonshine you sold was marked “illegal.”
Ben Shapiro rubs it in that all her problems are the result of her own decisions. All Hillary has n her defense are increasingly unbelievable attempts to blame the Republicans for her own problems.
This is the problem with being a paranoid control freak, as Hillary is: every accusation is merely more evidence that they’re out to get you. Or, as Hillary Clinton reportedly screamed at Barack Obama after asking him to call off his “f***ing dogs,” “There are always haters out there to get the Clintons.”

The haters could be in law enforcement. They could be old flames of Bill’s. They could be Bill’s alleged rape and sexual harassment victims. They could be anywhere, anyone, at any time.


Here’s the irony: Hillary is so paranoid about her domestic enemies that she put classified information on a server vulnerable to our foreign enemies. Which means that she worries less about Russia and China than about Fox News. Is that who Americans should trust with the nuclear codes?
Well, of course. She told us that Republicans are the enemies that she is most proud of. Her paranoia about them had to trump any concerns she had about foreign governments.

Kindle Deals up to 80% off


Shop Amazon Fashion - Men's Running Shoes

Bret Stephens is very annoyed by Ted Cruz's stupid attack on New York values.
But the deeper problem with Mr. Cruz’s assault on the Big Apple isn’t his personal hypocrisy, or his two-bit stereotypes, or in biting the hands that fed him. That’s what we expect of politicians; the priced-in rate of running for high office. It’s the full-frontal assault on millions of GOP voters who, on one issue or another, share some of those dreaded New York values. The senator is trying to do to socially moderate Republicans what Democrats did to their own social conservatives when they barred pro-life Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey from speaking at the 1992 Democratic Convention. Yes, kids, there used to be Democrats who didn’t march in lockstep with Emily’s List.

There also used to be a theory of politics that, in two-party systems, it was in both parties’ interests to pitch the broadest possible tent; to have, as the great Si Kenen once put it, “no enemies, only friends and potential friends.”

But that’s not Mr. Cruz’s theory. He believes in the utility of enemies—the media; Washington; his fellow Republican senators; other squishes—because they’re such easy foils and because he’s convinced that polarization works and persecution complexes sell. Who cares about Republican voters in New York (or California, or Massachusetts, or Illinois) when not one of their votes will count in the Electoral College? Why waste time and energy courting the center-right when doing so will earn you the permanent enmity of the permanently angry?

The answer to that one lies in Cuyahoga and Pinellas and Loudoun counties—those purple lands in Ohio, Florida and Virginia where swing voters still decide elections in this country. Mr. Cruz needs to answer how he plans to win 50.1% in those states, not 70% of the Bible Belt. Such an answer is available to a Republican nominee, but only one who doesn’t demean other people’s values even when he doesn’t share them. Mr. Cruz needs to study old Ronald Reagan clips to understand the difference between having strong beliefs and being an insufferable jerk about them.
It was a blunder for primary politics and for general election politics. And now he's doubling down on the mistake in an ad in Iowa. Cruz had run such a smart campaign up to that point and now his campaign just seems to be losing its intelligence.

Jay Cost has a typically intelligent explanation of how the wacky rules on delegate allocations for the Republicans might influence the outcome.
Importantly, states that hold their primaries or caucuses before March 15 must allocate their delegates proportionally (although they are allowed to mandate a minimum threshold of support). A candidate might therefore rack up a significant number of primary "wins" without building up much of a lead in delegates. That could give the trailing candidates a strong incentive to hang around (assuming they still have enough money to campaign) in the hopes of surging when the contests largely switch to winner-take-all. The opportunity for huge delegate bounties really begins on March 15: At that point, more than half of the delegates will still be unallocated, so a late-breaking candidate could increase his delegate count quickly.

Something else to keep in mind is that some states allocate portions of their delegates as winner-take-all by congressional district. This could be quite important and generate surprising results, in that it effectively gives a boost to Republican voters in heavily Democratic districts, where turnout in GOP primaries is correspondingly low.

The difference between caucuses and primaries is another relevant factor. Caucus states reward organization, and the most serious candidates have built strong operations in Iowa to drive turnout. But what about the other caucus states? The contenders have yet to dedicate much in the way of resources. In those states, a lot might come down to who the most politically engaged citizens support. These participants could have an outsized influence upon the final result. Delegates to the convention are allocated to states based upon population and historic support for Republican presidential candidates, not on past levels of turnout in the nomination process itself. Thus, in a race for delegates, 50,000 caucusgoers in Minnesota can have the same impact as a half-million primary voters in Wisconsin.
Cost points out how many Democratic states might have an outsize influence.
To appreciate just how important Byzantine nomination rules can be, it's worth recalling the 2008 Democratic nomination battle. That year, Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton, but the size of his popular vote victory was too small to be decisive. The rules of the nomination process made the difference. Though Obama's vote lead over Clinton was very narrow, the Democratic party's rules gave more weight to the average Obama voter than to the average Clinton voter.

Something like this could develop on the GOP side this year. Midwestern voters could be more important than Southern voters; voters in Democratic states or districts could be more valuable than voters in Republican states or districts; and participants in low-turnout caucuses could have more influence than primary voters. As the GOP goes about selecting its nominee, the rules will matter — perhaps a lot.
And we have no idea today which candidate these rules will help. The public might be influenced most by hearing that a particular candidate won certain primaries and lose sight of the delegate count, but that is what really matters.

It's quite amazing how closely what Trump laid out in his Art of the Deal prefigures his political campaign.
But Mr. Trump laid out how he would run his campaign 30 years ago in his best seller “The Art of the Deal.” Perhaps if more strategists had read the book, this race would be tighter. So let’s parse what Mr. Trump wrote.

“I play to people’s fantasies” and a “little hyperbole never hurts.”

.... “Sometimes, part of making a deal is denigrating your competition.”....

Another Trump mantra: “Controversy, in short, sells.” The media feed on controversy and Mr. Trump knows it better than any other candidate. Even harsh stories that hurt him personally can be valuable professionally.

Which brings us to: “Good publicity is preferable to bad, but from a bottom-line perspective, bad publicity is sometimes better than no publicity at all.”

....Finally: “If you ask me exactly what the deals . . . all add up to in the end, I’m not sure I have a very good answer. Except that I’ve had a very good time making them.”
Well, we've certainly seen all these tactics in this campaign.

John Hawkins has been a supporter of Donald Trump and he explains why in this column in which he lays out the reasons that he no longer supports Trump. It's encouraging to read his logical presentation of why a conservative turned from Trump even though having been honestly open to his candidacy from the beginning. Now he opposes Trump on policies and temperament as well as his fear that such a candidate would be disastrous for Republicans.
Since when do conservative engage in this type of blind loyalty towards ANY politician?

Similarly, Donald Trump talks incessantly about polls that are favorable to him, but the polls have also consistently shown that he loses to Hillary Clinton. Worse yet, his favorable/unfavorable ratings are 33/58. That’s the same as Jimmy Carter in early 1980. It’s WORSE than Walter Mondale. Trump even has a higher unfavorable rating with the general public than Nixon AFTER Watergate. It would be easier to rehabilitate Enron’s image than to make Trump President with those poll numbers.

Saying that a candidate with those poll numbers couldn’t win an election without a miracle is something that anyone who knows something about elections would normally agree on. Yet, with Trump, many people seem unfazed. Basically, they think he’s going to use some kind of “Trump magic” that will guarantee a victory.

The problem with that is that successful though Donald Trump may be, he fails all the time. He’s had four bankruptcies. Then there’s Trump steaks, Trump Vodka, Trump the Game, Trump Magazine, Trump Mortgage, Trump Airlines, Trump University, Trump Casinos, the New Jersey Generals and happily, he also lost a lawsuit and was unable to take a widow’s home via eminent domain so he could build a limo parking lot. Trump has been a successful businessman, but an awful lot of investors who put money into his ill-advised projects because they just assumed he’d find a way to win have gotten burned doing business deals with him. Again, barring a miracle, that’s what would happen to all of his supporters if he becomes the GOP nominee in 2016. Many of them don’t see it for the same reason Ron Paul’s fans couldn’t see it in 2012. Sure, Paul had a diehard following that voted for him in Internet polls and showed up at his events, but he alienated too many people to ever win a general election while he was building up his fanbase. Trump has done the same thing, except a little bigger and better.
I can only hope that other Trump supporters, those who are really conservatives at heart will see the light just as Hawkins has.

New Deals Every Day for Home and Kitchen

Best Deals in Auto Parts

Sales and Deals in Beauty and Grooming

Deals in Jewelry

Michael Barone is fed up with politicians who seem to assume that the natural inclination of the American people is to go out and attack Muslims if these politicians dare draw any connection between terrorism and Islam.
Nonetheless Obama still behaves as if any suggestion that terrorists shouting "Allahu akbar!" has something to do with Islam will spark massacres and persecution across the country. The American people are seen as a great beast, incapable of reason or cool judgment. Stupid and vicious.

So they must be reminded that they are not morally superior to terrorists. At a national prayer breakfast, Obama felt obliged to remind Americans that Christians attacked Muslims — in the Crusades, 800 years ago.

Others have followed his example. In a press conference earlier this month Philadelphia police officials described how a Muslim dressed in a white religious robe fired multiple rounds at a police officer, "in the name of Islam," as he said after his arrest. You could see it on videotape.

At which point Philadelphia Mayor James Kenney proclaimed, "In no way, shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you've seen on the screen."

How stupid and vicious does he think we are?

Actually, it's not that hard for ordinary people to keep in mind two different ideas that the elites think they'll find confusing — that most terrorists these days are Muslims, and that most Muslims are not terrorists. We keep similar things in mind every day. For example, we notice that most dangerously aggressive drivers are men, but also that most men are not dangerously aggressive drivers.

Meanwhile, the media and concerned elites ignore the evidence that there are more attacks on Jews in the U.S. than there are on Muslims. For example, in the past year there was a significant increase in attacks on Jews on college campuses.
Anti-Semitism on U.S. college campuses spiked in 2015, with 302 incidents against Jewish students recorded at 109 schools in 28 states, according to a new report warning that the rise of anti-Israel organizations is fueling hatred and making many campuses unsafe for Jews.

The array of incidents were recorded at many universities and often included Nazi imagery, slurs calling Jews “evil,” and calls for Jews be murdered, according to a report published by the AMCHA Initiative, an organization that seeks to protect Jewish students.

The organization created an online database that logs in real time reports of new anti-Semitic incidents at colleges across the nation. Several anti-Semitic incidents have been recorded in the first month of 2016.

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, AMCHA co-founder and director, warned that anti-Semitism on campus is growing as a result of highly aggressive anti-Israel student movements such as the group Students for Justice in Palestine, which has used Nazi imagery in its campaign to demonize Israel.

“There is a clear correlation between anti-Israel activism—particularly BDS campaigns—and the anti-Semitic targeting of Jewish students,” Rossman-Benjamin told the Washington Free Beacon. “For instance, acts of anti-Jewish harassment, discrimination, and defamation are higher in schools where BDS activity is high. The connection between BDS and campus anti-Semitism is undeniable.”

Some of the incidents recorded at universities were violent in nature, according to the report.
So what about attacks on Muslims, the concern that all these politicians are worrying about? This article that is supposed to show that there is a connection between fear of terrorism and anti-Muslim attacks reports that there were a little above 125 anti-Islamic hate crimes in the U.S. in 2014. Of those, probably a smaller number were on college campuses. The FBI's own statistics on hate crimes motivated by religious bias found that 14% were anti-Islamic and 59% were anti-Jewish. But strangely, we don't hear any politicians lecturing the American people that they shouldn't attack Jews. What a surprise.

The international community has given billions in aid to the Palestinians. Tzipi Hotovely, the deputy foreign minister of Israel, reports on where that money has gone. It certainly hasn't gone to help the Palestinian people.
For years the most senior figures in the Palestinian Authority have supported, condoned and glorified terror. “Every drop of blood that has been spilled in Jerusalem,” President Mahmoud Abbas said last September on Palestinian television, “is holy blood as long as it was for Allah.” Countless Palestinian officials and state-run television have repeatedly hailed the murder of Jews.

This support for terrorism doesn’t end with hate speech. The Palestinian regime in Ramallah pays monthly stipends of between $400 and $3,500 to terrorists and their families, the latter of which is more than five times the average monthly salary of a Palestinian worker.

According to data from its budgetary reports, compiled in June 2014 by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the PA’s annual budget for supporting Palestinian terrorists was then roughly $75 million. That amounted to some 16% of the foreign donations the PA received annually. Overall in 2012 foreign aid made up about a quarter of the PA’s $3.1 billion budget. More recent figures are inaccessible since the Palestinian Authority is no longer transparent about the stipend transfers.
As Hotovely points out, not only is the international community indirectly funding terrorism when it sends money to the Palestinians, it is also depriving more worthy and needy recipients of aid.
This situation is particularly disturbing given the disproportionate share of development assistance the Palestinians receive, which comes at the expense of needy populations elsewhere. According to a report last year by Global Humanitarian Assistance, in 2013 the Palestinians received $793 million in international aid, second only to Syria. This amounts to $176 for each Palestinian, by far the highest per capita assistance in the world. Syria, where more than 250,000 people have been killed and 6.5 million refugees displaced since 2011, received only $106 per capita.

A closer look at the remaining eight countries in the top 10—Sudan, South Sudan, Jordan, Lebanon, Somalia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo—is even more alarming. CIA Factbook data show that these countries have a combined population of 284 million and an average per capita GDP of $2,376. Yet they received an average of $15.30 per capita in development assistance in 2013. The Palestinians, by comparison, with a population of 4.5 million, have a per capita GDP of $4,900.

In other words, though the Palestinians are more than twice as wealthy on average than these eight countries, they receive more than 11 times as much foreign aid per person. The Democratic Republic of Congo is a case in point: Its 79 million people have a per capita GDP of $700, yet they receive only $5.70 in aid per person.

Between 1993 (when the Oslo Process began) and 2013, the Palestinians received $21.7 billion in development assistance, according to the World Bank. The Palestinian leadership has had ample opportunity to use these funds for economic and social development. Tragically, as seen in Hamas-run Gaza, it prefers to use the funds on its terrorist infrastructure and weaponry, such as cross-border attack tunnels and the thousands of missiles that have rained down in recent years on Israel.
Of course, such inconvenient truths never get mentioned at the U.N., unless Israel is making that point. The situation just continues and more and more money gets poured into terrorism.

Thomas Sowell reflects on those who search for villains instead of accepting that there are differences among groups and results.
The latest tempest in a teapot controversy is over a lack of black nominees for this year's Academy Awards in Hollywood.
The assumption seems to be that different groups would be proportionally represented if somebody were not doing somebody else wrong. That assumption carries great weight in far more important things than Academy Awards and in places more important than Hollywood, including the Supreme Court of the United States.

In an earlier era, the groupthink assumption was that groups that did not succeed as often, or as well, were genetically inferior. But is our current groupthink assumption based on any more hard evidence?

Having spent decades researching racial and ethnic groups around the world, I have never yet found a country in which all groups -- or even most groups -- are even roughly equally represented in most endeavors....

My own favorite example of unrepresentativeness, however, is right at home. Having watched National Football League games for more than 50 years, I have seen hundreds of black players score touchdowns, but I have never seen one black player kick the extra point.

What are we to conclude from this? Do those who believe in genetics think that blacks are just genetically incapable of kicking a football?

Featured Deals in Sports and Fitness

Today’s Deals at Amazon

Amazon Coupons

Shop Amazon Gift Cards. Any Occasion. No Expiration.

I teach both A.P. U.S. History and A.P. European History, both of which classes the College Board revised to supposedly allow teachers to go more in depth on selected topics rather than having to teach such a broad expanse of material. There is also supposed to be more of a focus on supposed "history thinking skills." I really hate this revision. I think it's actually expanded what we have to teach without any commensurate limitation on content. And this focus on thinking skills is being tested as a formulaic paint-by-numbers requirement. I could go on and on about what I don't like about the revisions, but this teacher does a much better job than I could.

L. Gordon Crovitz does something
that I thought I would never see - defend Cecil Rhodes and explain why Oxford should not pull down his statue despite the clear imperialist motives behind all Rhodes did. There was some information here that I'd never heard before.
The Cape Colony under Rhodes was liberal for its day. Africans could vote if they met the same property-holding or income requirements as whites. Rhodes might have bent too far to placate the Boers, the Dutch settlers whose support he needed to rule the colony. But at the end of his political career, Rhodes opposed a Boer plan to submit Africans to a literacy test before they could vote. Only after Rhodes left office did the Boers establish apartheid as official policy.

When Rhodes created his scholarship in 1902, he included a clause far ahead of its time. His will specifies that no student will be “qualified or disqualified on account of his race or religious opinions.”

The first black Rhodes Scholar, Alain Locke, was elected in 1907. Locke’s American peers shunned him; some threatened to resign their scholarships in protest. An official history of the scholarship explains why the Rhodes trustees rejected the complaints: “There was plenty of ‘color’ in the British Empire,” they said, and no one “was going to be debarred from a Rhodes scholarship on that ground.” Locke became a leading writer and scholar.

Instead of trying to erase Rhodes, Nelson Mandela embraced him. In 2002 the South African statesman posed for a photo in Cape Town beside a portrait of Rhodes. Mandela wagged a finger at him and said: “Cecil, now you and I are going to work together.” The Mandela-Rhodes Foundation funds education for Africans. “Combining our name with that of Cecil Rhodes in this initiative is to sign the closing of the circle and the coming together of two strands of our history,” Mandela said.
Well, if he was good enough for Nelson Mandela, he should be good enough for today's Oxford students.

This is how ridiculous it can be when rules trump common sense in schools. In an alternative school in Texas a student got into trouble for helping a girl having an asthma attack even though that meant breaking a rule about not leaving his classroom.
Anthony Ruelas watched for what seemed like an eternity as his classmate wheezed and gagged in a desperate struggle to breathe.

The girl told classmates that she was having an asthma attack, but her teacher refused to let anyone leave the classroom, according to NBC affiliate KCEN. Instead, the teacher emailed the school nurse and waited for a reply, telling students to stay calm and remain in their seats.

When the student having the asthma attack fell out of her chair several minutes later, Ruelas decided he couldn’t take it anymore and took action.

“We ain’t got time to wait for no email from the nurse,” a teacher’s report quotes him as saying, according to Fox News Latino.

And with that, the 15-year-old Gateway Middle School student carried his stricken classmate to the nurse’s office, violating his teacher’s orders.
For that act of consideration for a suffering student, he got suspended for two days. What a lesson for him and his fellow students about helping someone in a health emergency.

This is a bit of welcome news. Finally, the Missouri professor, Melissa Click, who tried to prevent a student journalist from filming a student protest there at Mizzou has been charged with assault. She's not allowed to put her hands on a student or his property, in this case his camera. Of course, more than 100 Mizzou faculty members support her. Of course.

Since politics has been so disheartening in recent months, I'd made a New Year's resolution to dial back a bit on following politics and devote more time to following sports. Unfortunately, my teams have had a few discouraging losses. Duke has been pretty bad in the past week. The Patriots lost and now the Spurs got hammered by the Warriors. Maybe I should just follow the Warriors instead of the Spurs. But it's tough to change sports allegiances. At least the Panthers were fun to watch. And they're all more fun than watching Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.